Louis,
Am in the middle of reading your piece below. But, already, I have a major
objection of principle. I am 55, not 60. People of my advanced age get
very worked up about these distinctions, maybe even more than about peasant
versus farmer! Now, back to the Japanese case.
But I can't resist one more. Stagist? geez!. The main initial left response
to my work was that it was voluntarist (see Guy Bois), since, for me, paths
of development depended on outcomes of class struggle...so that, in
particular, in much of the continent the outcome of class struggle made for
systematically non-capitalist development--yes, archetypically, in
peasant-absolutist France (despite Croot and Parker and others)--for long
after the supposed moment of transition took place.
Also, everything I've ever said on the third world--and it is not much--is
that penetration by European capital has tended to bring into being class
alliances that prevent development, while tying so-called "national
bourgeoisies" into existing order and making them defenders of that
non-developmental system. So, idea of natural succession of stages driven
by capital, or trade, or a "bourgeoisie" is systematically contradicted.
AND. Do take a look at my response to Croot and Parker in the debate book.
If you're interested, I'll send you more stuff on that whole line,
especially on cases where combination of peasants and trade and towns .is
strongest, as eg. medieval Flanders/Belgium
Best
bob
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)